Form, Function and Monumentality: A Critical Analysis of Jørn Utzon’s Late Work on the Sydney Opera House

ABSTRACT

The reengagement of Jørn Utzon on the Sydney Opera House in 1999 was considered an international coup and opportunity for healing and closure to the controversy sparked by his departure 32 years earlier. This paper investigates the consequences of Utzon’s reengagement and analyses the work completed by Utzon and his collaborators thereafter, both with respect to Utzon’s original work and to the work of Utzon’s successor, Peter Hall. A focus of the paper is the proposal by Utzon and JPW Architects, for a New Opera Theatre to replace the existing theatre completed by Hall in 1973. This controversial project challenges pre-existing narratives which focus on the Sydney Opera House as either an “unfinished” or “salvaged” masterpiece. While 50 years of successful operation can be attributed to the contribution of both Utzon and Hall, this becomes more complicated when considered within the context of monumentality. The need to accommodate evolving functional requirements within a fixed external form highlights inherent contradictions in the concept of a “modern monument.” By agreeing to become reassociated with his most important work, Utzon signalled that he recognised these challenges and, through three projects, demonstrated how the building could continue to evolve into the future. 

 

KEYWORDS:

• Sydney Opera House
• World Heritage
• Monumentality

Introduction

In October 2023 the Sydney Opera House will reach 50 years of operation. Few buildings can claim to have so fundamentally transformed the city which gave rise to them. From controversial beginnings the Sydney Opera House has emerged not only as the focal point of the city but a symbol of the entire nation, an incalculable tourist drawcard¹ and, most importantly, a performing arts centre of the highest calibre. This rich legacy can be attributed to the influence of two architects; Jørn Utzon, responsible for the competition winning design, the sculptural form on the harbour and the vision and inspiration to bring it into being, and Peter Hall, the architect who replaced Utzon midway through construction to complete the internal fit-out and glass walls. Like actors on a stage, Utzon and Hall each contributed to the building which stands on Bennelong Point today, one responsible for its form and the other for its function. Utzon’s return to the Sydney Opera House in the last decade of his life has added yet another act to the evolution of the Sydney Opera House, impacting our understanding of the contributions of both Utzon and Hall.

A catalyst for the rapprochement between Utzon and the New South Wales Government was the advent of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Under the approaching gaze of worldwide scrutiny, the government was forced to address some of the compounding problems which had beset the Sydney Opera House over the first thirty years of its existence. It thus called for expressions of interest from a shortlist of high-profile Sydney architects to implement a series of urgent upgrades, a position subsequently awarded to the Sydney architect Richard Johnson.² Utzon’s involvement and subsequent reengagement is credited to Johnson, who strongly advocated the necessity of engaging with the building’s original architect.³

Towards the end of his life Utzon had reached almost mythical status. Ironically, most publications which contributed to that standing followed his reengagement on the Sydney Opera House in 1999. Thus, while Utzon’s contribution to modern architecture was being written, Utzon himself was engaged in work which did not neatly fit that legacy. The very act of Utzon’s reengagement, irrespective of any work which followed, challenges our perception of the Sydney Opera House and casts events which preceded it into a new light. At a most fundamental level, by agreeing to return, Utzon tacitly acknowledged that the changes made to the building following his original departure were in principle correct, or at least that he was now in agreement with them. Rather than perpetuating the myth of a “perfect” Opera House still lingering in the minds of many of his supporters, Utzon chose to use the opportunity of reengagement to demonstrate how the building could be managed and adapted into the future.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the consequences of Utzon’s reengagement and analyse the work completed by Utzon and his collaborators thereafter, both in respect to Utzon’s original work on the Opera House as well as the building in its current form. The paper addresses a general lack of scholarly interest in Utzon’s late work, considered to represent a research gap in the literature on the topic. Rather than rely on new material however, the paper draws upon the substantial body of research currently available, while seeking to present this work in a new way.

The paper is organised into two parts. The first analyses a number of themes emerging out of Utzon’s reengagement. This is followed by an analysis of three key projects Utzon was personally involved in at the Sydney Opera House following his reengagement. Two of these projects, the Recital Room and Western Foyers, were completed during Utzon’s lifetime while the future of the third, the New Opera Theatre proposal, remains uncertain. Two decades after Utzon’s reengagement, a reappraisal of his work on the Sydney Opera House is considered timely. Without an understanding Utzon’s intentions, or the connection between his early and late work, the true significance of Utzon’s return to the Sydney Opera House is at risk of being lost.

The paper draws heavily upon the work of recognised Utzon scholars such as David Messent (1997), Philip Goad (1997), Francois Fromonot (1998), Philip Drew (1995, 1999, 2000), Peter Myers (1998), Richard Weston (2002), Peter Murray (2004) and Chui Chen-Yu (2011) among others, as well as the more recent reappraisal of the work of Peter Hall by Ken Woolley (2010), Peter Webber (2012) and particularly Anne Watson (2017). Rather than follow the example of these authors however, which tend to present the Sydney Opera House as the expression of the individual architect, the paper seeks to interpret the contributions of both Utzon and Hall from the perspective of the building itself, and particularly the individual briefs, or programmes, each architect was working to.

Part I: Themes Emerging from Utzon’s Reengagement

The Competition Brief and Review of Programme

It is often overlooked that Utzon and Hall worked to different briefs.⁴ As Utzon acknowledged in 2000, Peter Hall “had a new and different programme for the completion of the building, to the one I had been working on.”⁵ Utzon’s brief, known as the “Competition Brief,” was originally formulated in 1946 and abandoned twenty years later.⁶ Its defining characteristic was a requirement to combine the performance of opera and concerts within the same auditorium.⁷ Peter Hall’s brief, known as the “Review of Programme,” was prepared by Hall in collaboration with the New York theatre consultant Ben Schlanger,⁸ after Utzon’s departure in 1966. Contrary to its predecessor, the abiding characteristic of the Review of Programme was that it separated the functions of concert and opera into separate halls. Despite the enormous professional and personal consequence of this decision on the careers of both architects, the fundamental logic of changing briefs for the Sydney Opera House has been historically vindicated. From the day of its official opening on 20 October 1973, the Sydney Opera House has enjoyed season upon successful season of concurrent concert and opera performances, which can be directly attributed to the separation of its primary performance venues.

Unique amongst the competition entries, Utzon’s design placed the auditoriums side by side on the harbour, resulting in a constraint that both Utzon and Hall were subsequently forced to work to. Utzon’s solution was to service the auditoriums vertically, via a series of stage lifts and placement of storage props and scene changing equipment below the stage. As concert and opera could not be performed concurrently, this necessitated substantial adjustment to the auditorium in order to switch from one performance type to another.⁹ Hall’s solution was to separate the uses of the building into separate auditoriums and dispense with this requirement altogether, releasing large amounts of space beneath the main auditorium. Over the years this residual space has been occupied by a series of ad-hoc functions, including an exhibition space, cinema, recording studio and library. Shortly prior to Utzon’s reengagement it settled on the performance venues which occupy the space today, known as the Drama Theatre, Studio and The Playhouse. The formalisation of the foyers for these spaces represented one of the three projects undertaken by Utzon and Johnson following Utzon’s reengagement, as discussed in further detail below.

Conflicting Narratives: The ‘Unfinished’ and ‘Salvaged’ Masterpiece

Over the past decade, research by the academic Chiu Chen-Yu, among others, has explored the influence on Utzon of Chinese art, architecture and philosophy. Much of this research originated from Chiu’s 2011 doctoral thesis, Utzon’s China: the reinterpretation of traditional Chinese art and architecture in the work of Jørn Utzon (1918-2008),¹⁰ which explores the three-way relationship between Danish culture, Jørn Utzon and traditional Chinese art and philosophy. In his thesis, Chiu acknowledges Peter Myers, an architect once employed by Utzon, as someone who has long promoted Utzon’s interest in ancient Chinese construction methods.¹¹

A consistent theme of this otherwise excellent research is that the Sydney Opera House remains “unfinished.” In his thesis Chiu argues that “ … there was never a chance for Utzon to complete his unfinished masterpiece”¹² (my italics). Written 12 years after Utzon’s reengagement, this statement is surprising and reminiscent of Myers paper on the Sydney Opera House from 1998 stating that “Joern [sic] Utzon, whose masterpiece, the Sydney Opera House, still remains unfinished, is altogether an architect outside the main currents of modernism” (my italics).¹³

As recently as 2019, in My Country and My People and Sydney Opera House: the missing link,¹⁴ Chiu and Myers assert that “the inheritance of [Chinese writer and philosopher] Lin Yutang’s writing remains vividly in Utzon’s unfinished masterpiece” (my italics).¹⁵ However this assertion is tempered by the statement;

Utzon’s perceived ideas and ideals from Lin Yutang’s conceptualization of Chinese art and architecture should serve an [sic] aesthetic principle for restoring this yet to-be-finished masterpiece (my italics).¹⁶

The distinction between “unfinished” and “yet to-be-finished” is subtle. The former implies that the building remains unfinished because it was never completed in accordance with Utzon’s original designs. The latter suggests that Utzon’s abiding interest in Chinese art and architecture should be used as a source of aesthetic guidance for future adaptations of the building in order to meet evolving functional requirements. The following paper explores implications of this second approach, suggesting that the Sydney Opera House is indeed “unfinished” and will remain so as long as the evolving functional needs of its users are required to be accommodated within a fixed external form.

An alternative narrative to the “unfinished masterpiece” has emerged out of the recent reappraisal of the work of Peter Hall.¹⁷ Rather than present the Sydney Opera House as “unfinished,” it suggests that it was precisely the work of Hall which enabled the building to be “finished” at all. The argument purports that Hall saved (or salvaged) the Sydney Opera House from disaster following Utzon’s sudden departure in 1966. The “salvaged masterpiece” narrative can be traced to one of the earliest books on the Opera House, The Sydney Opera House Affair, by Michael Baume published in 1967.¹⁸ It hinges on the premise that the building’s success can be attributed to the New South Wales Government’s decision to adopt the Review of Programme brief in 1967. Where the “salvaged masterpiece” narrative loses traction however is in the proposition that Hall’s work on the Sydney Opera House is of equal significance to that of Utzon’s.¹⁹ While central to its successful operation over the past half century, divorced from their context, Peter Hall’s interiors are unlikely to merit an equivalent level of significance to that attained by the building’s exterior.

Thus two incompatible narratives have framed the Sydney Opera House over the past half century, one which considers the building “unfinished” because it does not contain Utzon’s original interiors and the other which considers the building as “finished,” despite the current interiors being aesthetically incompatible with Utzon’s exterior. Utzon’s reengagement introduces a third narrative, which integrates the work of Hall within Utzon’s vision by accepting the legitimacy of the Review of Programme over the Competition Brief. By agreeing to become re-engaged on the project in 1999, Utzon signalled he recognised that the Sydney Opera House would continue to need to adapt in response to changing circumstances and technological advancements in the future.

Monumentality, Modernity and the Sydney Opera House

The relationship between modern architecture and monumentality is complex and there is insufficient opportunity to do justice to it in this paper. Originally applied to structures from previous eras, the term “monument” was at first considered incompatible with modern architecture.²⁰ That changed towards the end of World War II with the publication of Nine Points on Monumentality by Giedion, Sert and Leger, identifying the need for modern architecture to produce buildings “intended to outlive the period which originated them, and constitute a heritage for future generations.”²¹

Half a century of modernism in Europe and the United States had convinced Giedion and his collaborators that functionalism on its own, as a determinant of form, was incapable of expressing human emotion across generations. More powerful forms of expression, unrelated to transient functional requirements, would be required to satisfy society’s need for “emotional expression”. Giedion’s identification of the Sydney Opera House as an exemplar of just this type of monumental expression is well known,²² as was his utter devastation when Utzon left the project in 1966.²³ The source of Giedion’s frustration however can be traced to an aspect of monumentality that he himself failed to anticipate, namely the evolution of functional requirements within monumental form.

The publication of Nine Points on Monumentality coincided with a symposium in New York, edited by the German émigré architect Paul Zucker, to which Giedion contributed an article entitled “The Need for a New Monumentality.”²⁴ In the same symposium a contribution by the young American architect Louis Kahn, entitled simply Monumentality,²⁵ expanded on the relationship between monumental form and modern materials and construction.

Standardization, prefabrication, controlled experiments and tests, and specialization are not monsters to be avoided by the delicate sensitiveness of the artist. They are merely the modern means of controlling vast potentialities of materials for living, by chemistry, physics, engineering, production and assembly, which lead to the necessary knowledge the artist must have to expel fear in their use, broaden his creative instinct, give him new courage and thereby lead him to the adventures of unexplored places.²⁶

The Sydney Opera House’s design, construction and first-principles approach fits well within both Giedion and Kahn’s definition of modern monumental architecture. Kahn’s essay even anticipated the inter-disciplinary dependency in monumental architecture between architect and engineer.

The engineer and architect must then go back to basic principles, must keep abreast with and consult the scientist for new knowledge, redevelop his judgment of the behaviour of structures and acquire a new sense of form derived from design rather than piece together parts of convenient fabrication.²⁷

It is well known that the relationship between Utzon and the engineer Ove Arup was critical to the Sydney Opera House’s ultimate success, as evidenced by the 2007 World Heritage inscription which recognises the building as an “outstanding achievements in structural engineering and technological innovation.”²⁸ Yet innovative engineering and construction²⁹ alone do not adequately convey the essential quality which renders a building monumental. As expressed by Kahn

Monumentality in architecture may be defined as a quality, a spiritual quality inherent in a structure which conveys the feeling of its eternity, that it cannot be added to or changed.³⁰

It is this quality which the competition jurors were looking for when they judged the Sydney Opera House competition 13 years later.

The extent to which Utzon would have been aware of the debate around monumentality in modern architecture is difficult to determine. One person who would have been familiar with it however was the American architect and competition juror Eero Saarinen. So instrumental in recognising the merits of Utzon’s design, Saarinen discusses this quality in a revealing interview undertaken shortly before his departure from Sydney following the competition in 1957.

What is great architecture and what isn’t great architecture? It’s not only how well it works and so forth, it’s a quality beyond that. It’s how much does it inspire man, and I think this building will really have these qualifications. That’s why we feel convinced that this building can be one of the great buildings of the world.³¹

Saarinen’s distinction between how well a building “works,” and how much it “inspires man” touches upon the inherent difference between the work of Utzon and Hall on the Sydney Opera House. Even at the competition stage, Saarinen identified a quality in Utzon’s submission which transcended the mere fulfilment of functional requirements, a sentiment consistent among his fellow jurors.

Predominantly, most of the competitors tried to solve the problem in today’s techniques. We looked for a monumental work. Afterall, you don’t go to the opera very often. It is a bit of an occasion, and its nice to go to a magnificent building.³²

Utzon’s vision of a building which responded to its spectacular setting, while also accommodating the requirements of the brief, were what ultimately convinced the judges of the merits of his design.³³ However the perceived link between form and function in Utzon’s design was always tenuous, something which became apparent when the brief for the building changed.

One of the “functions” of the roof shells in Utzon’s design (Utzon’s famous fifth façade), was to conceal the stage towers which almost without exception protruded above the roof line of the other competition entries.³⁴ This functional relationship was severed when the brief was changed after Utzon’s departure and the stage tower of the main hall was demolished midway through construction. Despite the huge upheaval that this internal adjustment generated, the expressive, monumental force of the building remained undiminished, challenging one of the foundational principles of modern architecture, that “form follows function”.³⁵ It demonstrates that monumental form could exist in its own right, without the need for a functional purpose to justify it.

Form, Function and World Heritage Listing

The Sydney Opera House remains unique on the UNESCO World Heritage list for a number of reasons. Firstly, at 35 years (in 2007) it was the youngest building ever listed.³⁶ Secondly, Utzon’s reengagement made it one of the only listings to involve the original architect. The most significant characteristic of the Sydney Opera House World Heritage listing however, relates to its relationship between form and function, as expressed by the architectural historians Sheridan Burke and Susan Macdonald.

What is different at the opera house [sic] is that part of the significance of the place is its performance role [and that] its functional use is an attribute of its heritage significance, just as much as its form, fabric and setting.³⁷

From the perspective of the World Heritage Committee, what perhaps had previously been considered as a tension between the building’s form and function was now recognised as intrinsic to its significance. It follows that as function is subject to change while form remains static, the symbiotic relationship between the two remains perpetually challenged. Unlike the inflexible narratives of the “unfinished” and “salvaged” masterpiece, the ability of the Sydney Opera House to absorb changes in its functional requirements was seen as an attribute rather than a threat. The fact that the Sydney Opera House not only survived but thrived following the drastic intervention of 1967 is testimony to the fact that the relationship between form and function on the Sydney Opera House was not fixed but dynamic and evolving.

Utzon’s Vision: Enduring Principles or Evolving Dialogue

The idea that “Utzon’s vision” for the Sydney Opera House could expand beyond his work prior to 1966 is essential to understanding the significance of his reengagement. The definitive document encapsulating Utzon’s vision for the building is the Utzon Design Principles, published in 2002.³⁸ Throughout the Design Principles, Utzon’s tone is conciliatory, accommodating and forgiving. The Concert Hall is “an impressive auditorium, that the people are happy about”, it was lucky “that Ove Arup stayed on the job, otherwise it would have never been completed” and the Opera House today “is as much a building made by Hall, Todd and Littlemore” as by Utzon.³⁹

Yet a clear definition of Utzon’s vision remains elusive. Despite their conciliatory tone, and endorsement as the definitive expression of Utzon’s vision in the current edition of the Conservation Management Plan,⁴⁰ the Utzon Design Principles can best be described as ambiguous.⁴¹ It highlights some of the complexity of working within the constraints imposed by the building in its current form, evolving functional and technical requirements and the legacy of Utzon’s original design. The three projects discussed in Part II each represent an alternate approach to that challenge.

That Utzon’s vision for the Sydney Opera House remained relatively consistent can be gauged by comparing his essay Platforms and Plateaus: Ideas of a Danish Architect⁴² from 1962, with the Utzon Design Principles published exactly forty years later. In his 1962 essay, Utzon expresses his fascination with the ancient platforms of Yucatan in Mexico, visited during a scholarship funded tour in 1949. Utzon describes the platform as having the simultaneous benefits of elevating the human spirit (equated with reaching the end of a long Scandinavian winter) and the ability to separate cultural activities from necessary yet undesirable activities such as traffic.⁴³ These two principles were combined in the Sydney Opera House podium, where Utzon designated the top of the platform as the meeting place of audience and performers, and the area beneath accommodating all activities necessary for its support.

In the Sydney Opera House scheme the idea has been to let the platform cut through like a knife and separate primary and secondary functions completely. On top of the platform the spectators receive the completed work of art and beneath the platform every preparation for it takes place.⁴⁴

This theme is reinforced in the 2002 Utzon Design Principles, where Utzon writes:

This feeling of moving upwards, was a determining factor in the shaping of the large platform or plateau, which, within its mass, could house all the facilities for preparing the performances with stage sets etc.

Unlike the 1962 article however, Utzon adds that:

To emphasise the mass of the plateau in relation to the sea (harbour) and to the white roof-shells, it is very important that the exterior of the plateau remains with as few and as small openings in its sides, as possible.⁴⁵

Utzon’s requirement for the plateau to remain “with as few and as small openings in its sides as possible” was seemingly contradicted by his decision to open the foyers beneath the Concert Hall to the harbour in 2006. Justification for this departure from Utzon’s vision is provided by the authors of the 2003 Conservation Management Plan and the 2006 World Heritage submission. The openings are deemed acceptable by treating them in a similar way to openings in the original Yucatan platforms; via the addition of an external veranda or colonnade.⁴⁶ By returning to source of his original inspiration for the podium, both physically and metaphorically,⁴⁷ Utzon demonstrated how his vision for the building could, under certain circumstances, be adapted to meet evolving user requirements.

The Integration of the Work of Peter Hall

In the 2002 Design Principles, Utzon acknowledges that the “architects taking over the work after me, Hall, Todd & Littlemore, with the aid of Ove Arup’s company, [have] made the building function so well.”⁴⁸ This acknowledgement of Hall and Arup represents an important step in the process of unifying the competing narratives of the Sydney Opera House’s history. In recognising the role Peter Hall played in the completion of the building, Utzon is signalling his acceptance of Hall’s contribution to the realisation of his own (Utzon’s) vision.

The acknowledgement of Peter Hall’s work within Utzon’s overall vision for the Sydney Opera House played a pivotal role in the World Heritage listing of 2007.⁴⁹ Uniting the competing narratives of the building’s troubled history enabled the submission authors to neatly address the issue of authenticity in a building containing two architectural influences.

The re-engagement of Utzon to write the design principles for the ongoing conservation of the property is unique and affords the opportunity to maintain the authenticity of the Sydney Opera House to an extraordinary extent. The Conservation Plan (SOH) has been directly influenced by and tested against the architect’s vision and the spirit of the design, material and substance of the building.⁵⁰

Within the submission to the World Heritage committee, Utzon’s departure from the project in 1966 is presented more as an absence, with the work of Peter Hall occurring between Utzon’s departure and return.

Conservation issues have arisen from…multiple authorship. However, Utzon’s reengagement in 1999 has allowed many of the issues to be discussed and resolved with far greater understanding of the building than is typically the case.⁵¹

While unlikely to persuade adherents of the “unfinished” and “salvaged” masterpiece narratives, it suggests that between his initial departure and reengagement Utzon came to recognise the Sydney Opera House as an entity with many contributors, rather than his personal architectural creation.

Part II: Utzon’s Late Work on the Sydney Opera House

Following the publication of the Utzon Design Principles in May 2002, Utzon Architects, consisting of Jørn and Jan Utzon and Johnson Pilton Walker (JPW), represented by Richard Johnson, completed three commissions on the Sydney Opera House. Two of these projects, the Recital Room (known today as the Utzon Room) and the Western Foyers, were completed during Utzon’s lifetime while a third, the proposal for a New Opera Theatre, remains unbuilt. Each project, to varying degrees, demonstrates an expansion of “Utzon’s vision” while highlighting the risks and opportunities associated with applying that vision to current and future projects.

The Recital Room (Utzon Room)

Known today as the Utzon Room, the Recital Room is regularly described as the “first authentic Utzon interior”.⁵² As Crocker correctly points out however, rather than being a new contribution to the building, the Recital Room is in fact the refurbishment of a space always intended by Utzon.⁵³

As can be seen from Fig. 1, Utzon envisaged a Chamber Music Room within the space today occupied by the Recital Room as far back as 1958. Described by Utzon in 1965 as a hall with a “capacity of about 310 with loose seating arranged to suit the varied requirements of Chamber music, lectures or meetings,”⁵⁴ this description could equally apply to the space today, which is described as “a rectangular reception hall used for seminars, meetings, cocktail parties, intimate music performances, children’s shows and media conferences” with a capacity of 270.⁵⁵

Figure 1. Sydney Opera House-First Floor 1958. Red Book. Utzon Archives and Sydney Opera House Trust. The Chamber Music Hall has been highlighted by the author. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

Describing this space as the “first authentic Utzon interior” highlights some of the complexities surrounding the application of Utzon’s vision. As the room is relatively consistent with Utzon’s original design, it represents more of a reinstatement of Utzon’s original vision, rather than an expansion of it. While unquestionably a beautiful space, and definitely showing evidence of Utzon’s hand (Fig. 2), the Recital Room does not, strictly speaking, represent any change in Utzon’s vision. Rather, it can be described as an upgrade of a space originally designed by Utzon and completed by Peter Hall, prior to its refurbishment.

Figure 2. The Recital Room (Utzon Room) completed by Utzon Architects and Johnson Pilton Walker 2004. (https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/content/dam/ pdfs/functions/ utzon-room-technical-and-product-information.pdf). Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

The Western Foyers and Colonnade

By comparison, the second project undertaken by Utzon Architects and JPW, completed over two stages between 2006 and 2009, represents a far greater departure from Utzon’s original work. Unlike the Recital Room, the Western Foyers arose directly out of the 1967 Review of Programme which, as mentioned, released a large amount of space beneath the Concert Hall in locations previously occupied by the stage tower and storage areas and today occupied by the Drama Theatre, Studio and Playhouse.⁵⁶ Shortly prior to Utzon’s reengagement, the foyers of these adjacent venues had been amalgamated by the Sydney based, Danish architect Leif Kristensen.⁵⁷

Controversially, and contrary to Utzon’s stated requirement for the podium to contain “as few and as small openings in its sides as possible,” Utzon and Johnson opted to strengthen the connection between the foyers and their harbour setting via a series of large, glazed openings (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. The Western Foyers Sydney Opera House by Utzon Architects and Johnson Pilton Walker, 2009. Photograph by Philip Nobis March 2021.

Unlike the Recital Room, this work represents a clear departure from Utzon’s original vision. Faced with a choice between maintaining the principle of preserving the appearance of the podium as a solid mass, or adapting his vision to accommodate the changing functional requirements of the building, Utzon chose the latter. To reduce the visual impact of such large openings on the podium’s western flank, Utzon proposed a 46 m colonnade to be constructed externally, throwing the glazed openings into almost permanent shadow. (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. The Western Colonnade Sydney Opera House by Utzon Architects and Johnson Pilton Walker, 2006. Photograph by Philip Nobis March 2021.

As previously discussed, this contravention of Utzon’s own design principles has been justified by Kerr and others by likening the new colonnade to the colonnades found in the Mayan temples which inspired Utzon’s original competition winning design.⁵⁸ Interestingly, Utzon revisited the Mayan ruins at Uxmal after leaving Australia, for the final time, in April 1966.⁵⁹ Utzon’s personal footage from that visit clearly shows a visual relationship between the colonnade at the Sydney Opera House and the ruins at Uxmal (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. House of the Nuns, Uxmal, Yucatan. Still from Jørn Utzon’s original 1966 film. The Utzon Archives, Aalborg University Library (© Utzon Archives/ Aalborg University & Utzon Center). Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

The colonnade has engendered strong opinions. Considered a “sophisticated and ingenious” solution by Myers,⁶⁰it has been elsewhere described as a “bastardisation,” a “dreadful mistake,” a “muddle of architectural ideas” and “the most dispirited thing ever to claim Utzon as an architect.”⁶¹ Such strong reactions demonstrate the extreme sensitivity surrounding any interference, even by the original architect, with the Sydney Opera House. By agreeing to such a radical intervention, Utzon signalled that he was prepared to accept a level of flexibility around the principles underlying the Sydney Opera House for the benefit of the user, a sentiment echoed in the Design Principles.

As time passes and needs change, it is natural to modify the building to suit the needs and techniques of the day. The changes, however, should be such that the original character of the building is maintained. That is to say, I certainly condone changes to the Sydney Opera House. Both changes due to general maintenance and changes done due [sic] to functional changes.⁶²

In many ways the Western Foyers and colonnade are more representative of Utzon’s vision for the building than the Recital Room because they both contravene and adhere to Utzon’s design principles. The contravention has already been discussed. The adherence lies in Utzon’s ability to respond to “functional changes” by drawing upon solutions sourced from his original inspiration. What is clear is that in Utzon’s opinion the intervention was justified, otherwise he would not have condoned it.⁶³ Like the separation of the stage towers and roof shells, it demonstrates Utzon’s acknowledgement that architectural principles are amenable to adaptation in the face of changing user requirements.

The New Opera Theatre Proposal

The as-yet unbuilt New Opera Theatre proposal, designed by Utzon Architects and Johnson Pilton Walker in 2005, in collaboration with Arup as structural and acoustic engineers, represents by far the most challenging expression of Utzon’s expanded vision. Rather than being expanded, Utzon’s vision in this instance has been transferred from his pre–1966 design for the interiors to an entirely new application.⁶⁴ When implemented, Utzon’s authority over the building would extend from its external form to its internal functions, which would either have been designed under his direction or, in the case of the Concert Hall, received his imprimatur.

The relationship between the Opera Theatre proposal and Utzon’s original design is outlined in an introduction by Utzon to the submission to the Sydney Opera House Trust on 31 March 2005.

These new plans for the refurbishment of the Opera Theatre have also given us the opportunity to create the festive, colourful, delightful auditorium I envisaged in the original design. We did not necessarily want to copy that design, but used the original ideas and principles as an inspiration to create something unique …⁶⁵

This approach is consistent with Utzon’s position in the Design Principles Which state:

Whenever somebody wants to remodel something, re-furnish areas you could look back at the ideas that were being developed, some of these might be viable today … and some of them have been outdated.⁶⁶

The “ideas that were being developed” by Utzon for the interiors prior to 1966 which are in evidence in the New Opera Theatre design are described individually below.

Geometric Foundation

Utzon’s understanding of the relationship between geometry and structure can be attributed to his collaboration with Ove Arup on the concrete roof shells. As early as 1958 Arup emphasised the necessity of regulating Utzon’s sculptural roof through repeatable geometrical forms.⁶⁷ After many attempts to find a suitable geometry, the so called spherical solution was reached in October 1961, enabling each element of the roof to be prescribed and manufactured efficiently in repeatable moulds. It was this principle that Utzon sought to apply to the auditorium ceilings. Instead of a sphere, the geometry that Utzon proposed for the ceiling was based on a cylinder of equal radius (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Model of Utzon’s original auditorium ceiling for the Minor Hall of 1965. Original images held in the Utzon Collection, Mitchell Wing, State Library of New South Wales. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

The 2005 Opera Theatre design reintroduces the principle of a segmented cylindrical ceiling, with segments constructed from a hypothetical cylinder of 9.754 m radius (32 feet).⁶⁸ A characteristic of both Utzon’s original design and the 2005 proposal was that individual segments could be manipulated during the design process to maximise the volume of the space within the auditorium beneath the constraints of the concrete roof shells. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the application of a geometrical principal to the ceiling design is apparent in both Utzon’s 1965 Minor Hall ceiling and the 2005 Opera Theatre proposal.⁶⁹

Figure 7. Comparison of ceiling profiles. Utzon’s 1965 Minor Hall interior (L) and 2005 proposal for the Opera Theatre (R). Image of Opera Theatre proposal used with permission by Utzon Architects and JPW – Architects in Collaboration. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

Acoustic and Visual Alignment

Another characteristic of Utzon’s original design was the visual and acoustic alignment between audience and performance. The large radiating ceiling beams focus the attention of the audience onto the stage while simultaneously enhancing the acoustic ceiling reflections. A comparison of the 1965 Minor Hall ceiling and the 2005 Opera Theatre proposal can be seen in Fig. 8.

Figure 8. Comparison between acoustic model of the Minor Hall dated 1965 (New South Wales Archives Ref. 4/7897B) (L) and Opera Theatre proposal dated 2005 (R). Image of Opera Theatre proposal used with permission by Utzon Architects and JPW – Architects in Collaboration. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

Separation from the Shells

A further characteristic of Utzon’s original interiors which was reintroduced in the Opera Theatre proposal was for the outside of the auditorium to be structurally separated from the concrete roof shells. This separation enabled the audience to appreciate the sense that the auditoriums were positioned beneath, and independent of, the concrete roof shells, a relationship described by Utzon as “a piece of furniture, placed under the shell.”⁷⁰ The extent to which this separation has been achieved in the 2005 proposal is difficult to determine from the evidence available, yet it is clear that the principle of separation between auditorium and roof has been maintained (Fig. 9).

Figure 9. Comparison between Utzon’s design for the Minor Hall dated 1962 (Mitchell Wing, State Library of New South Wales Ref. PXD 590v14/155) (L) and 2005 Opera Theatre proposal (R) showing relationship between auditorium and roof shells. Image of Opera Theatre proposal used with permission by Utzon Architects and JPW – Architects in Collaboration. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

Festive Colours

The final characteristic of Utzon’s original interiors transferred to the Opera Theatre design is the application of “festive colours.”⁷¹ In the Design Principles Utzon describes this as follows.

As you enter the Minor or Major Hall this explodes into a very rich expression of colours, which uplift you in that festive mood, away from daily life, that you expect when you go to the theatre, a play, an opera or concert.⁷²

It is clear that Utzon equated the communion of audience and performers with a heightened state of awareness that should be reflected in the internal finishes of the auditorium. Unlike the circulation areas, which retained a natural palette of wood and concrete, Utzon’s auditoriums were intended to give the impression of “another world.” The visual impact of this can be gauged from two models Utzon commissioned for the Major Hall prior to his departure from Sydney in 1966.⁷³ Completed in part after Utzon left Australia, the models show a ceiling richly decorated in red and gold.⁷⁴ Images of the 2005 Opera Theatre proposal show a similar use of colour (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Comparison between Utzon’s 1966 design for the Major Hall (L) and the Opera Theatre proposal of 2005 (R). Image of Opera Theatre proposal used with permission by Utzon Architects and JPW – Architects in Collaboration. Used under Fair Dealing Provision for Criticism and Review.

Conclusion

Utzon’s reengagement and late work on the Sydney Opera House challenges the traditional competing narratives of an “unfinished” or “salvaged” masterpiece, which have continued in one form of another since his departure from Australia in 1966. Utzon’s decision to return to the project, and the work undertaken by him and his collaborators since that time, demonstrates a change in “Utzon’s vision” characterised by a willingness to accommodate the evolving user requirements of the building at the expense of theoretical principles. This amenability, exemplified by the willingness to accommodate evolving functional requirements within the constraints of a fixed external form, suggests that Utzon, towards the end of his career, recognised the Sydney Opera House as an entity beyond his own creation and control.

The expansion of “Utzon’s vision” from his pre–1966 work to after 1999, highlights some of the inherent challenges of a modern monument, where the form of the building is required to be preserved while its internal function continues to evolve. Utzon’s recognition of the need to accommodate evolving functional requirements within the Sydney Opera House led him to re-evaluate a number of his original design principles, such as the relationship between the stage towers and concrete roof shells and the monolithic appearance of the podium. An expansion of Utzon’s vision has also facilitated the integration of the work of Peter Hall, as well as the integration of new work completed subsequently to Utzon’s reengagement. With the benefit of thirty-year hiatus, Utzon came to recognise that the life span of the interiors of the Sydney Opera House represent only a fraction of that of the exterior, and that any planning for the future had to allow for the interiors to be adapted, upgraded and inevitably replaced in response to changing functional and technical requirements within the confines of its external form.⁷⁵

Of the three projects in which Utzon was involved following reengagement the as-yet-unbuilt New Opera Theatre proposal of 2005 is by far the most challenging. Four key characteristics, identified as geometric foundation, visual and acoustic alignment, structural separation from the roof shells and “festive colours”, demonstrate how the Opera Theatre design could be considered a continuation of Utzon’s vision. While many hurdles remain before this important work can be implemented, a perceived lack of connection to Utzon’s original design should not be among them.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. It has been estimated that 10.9 million people visited the Sydney Opera House, including 2.9 million international visitors, contributing a combined $1.2 billion to the New South Wales economy in 2018. See: “Revaluing Our Icon–Midpoint in Sydney Opera House’s Decade of Renewal” (Deloitte Access Economics. https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about-us/how-we-work/governance-policies-and-corporate-information/deloitte-report).

2. At the time of receiving the Sydney Opera House commission Johnson was director of Denton Corker Marshall’s Sydney office. He subsequently founded the firm of Johnson Pilton Walker (JPW), which retained the Sydney Opera House commission. See Ann Marie Due Schmidt, “The Tectonic Practice- In the Transition from Pre-Digital to a Digital Era “(PhD diss., Dept. Architecture and Design, Aalborg University, 2007), 200.

3. For detail on Utzon’s reengagement see interviews between Johnson and Due-Schmidt in Appendix. Due-Schmidt, “The Tectonic Practice”, 200.

4. Within this paper the terms “brief” and “programme” are considered interchangeable.

5. Jørn Utzon, “Utzon Document 4 June 2000” in Sydney Opera House Utzon Design Principles May 2002 (Sydney: SOH Trust), 28.

6. See David Messent, Sydney Opera House Act One (Sydney: David Messent Photography, 1997), 65.

7. For a detailed description of the competition brief see Philip Drew, The Masterpiece: Jørn Utzon, A Secret Life (South Yarra: Hardie Grant Books, 1999), 99.

8. See Anne Watson “Chapter 4: ‘An agonising Impossible Decision:’ The Controversy of the ‘Review of Programme’” in The Poisoned Chalice: Peter Hall and the Sydney Opera House (Ballina: opusSOH Incorporated, 2017), 79.

9. For a detailed description of Utzon’s original auditoriums see Philip Nobis “Utzon’s Interiors for the Sydney Opera House: The Design Development of the Major and Minor Hall 1958-1966” (Diss., University of Technology, Sydney, 1994).

10. Chen-Yu Chiu “Utzon’s China: the reinterpretation of traditional Chinese art and architecture in the work of Jørn Utzon 1918-2008” (PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 2011).

11. Chiu, “Utzon’s China” (2011), VI, 11 & 69.

12. Chiu, “Utzon’s China”, 102.

13. Peter Myers, “Joern Utzon” The Journal of Architecture 3 (4):301-309 DOI: 10.1080/136023698374099. Originally published as “Une Histoire Inachevee” (An Unfinished Story) in L‘Architecture d ‘Aujourd ‘hui (1992) 285: 60-67.

14. Chen-Yu Chiu, Philip Goad, Peter Myers & Nur Yıldız Kılınçer, “My Country and My People and Sydney Opera House: The missing link” in Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019) 8 (2): 136-153.

15. Chen-Yu Chiu et al. “My Country”, 137.

16. Chen-Yu Chiu et al. “My Country”, 137.

17. See Ken Woolley, Reviewing the Performance, the design of the Sydney Opera House (Boorowa: Watermark Press, 2010), Peter Webber, Peter Hall Architect: The Phantom of the Opera House (Boorowa: Watermark Press, 2011) and Anne Watson, The Poisoned Chalice: Peter Hall and the Sydney Opera House (Ballina: opusSOH Incorporated, 2017).

18. Michael Baume, The Sydney Opera House Affair (Sydney: Nelson Australia, 1967).

19. The strongest advocate of this position is Woolley who refers to Hall’s auditoriums as being of “outstanding national importance in their aesthetic character which utilises natural and structural materials in a direct, expressive manner, characteristic of architectural thinking of the day.” Woolley, Reviewing the Performance, 143.

20. “The notion of a modern monument is veritably a contradiction in terms: if it is a monument it is not modern, and if it is modern, it cannot be a monument.” Lewis Mumford, The Culture of Cities (San Diego: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1938), 438.

21. Josep Lluís Sert, Fernand Léger and Sigfried Giedion. “Nine points on monumentality” in Architecture culture 1968 (1943): 27-30.

22. Philip Goad “An Appeal for Modernism: Sigfried Giedion and the Sydney Opera House” Fabrications (1997) 8 (1):129-145.

23. Siegfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: the Growth of a New Tradition, 5th edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1968).

24. Siegfried Giedion “The Need for a New Monumentality” in New Architecture and City Planning: a Symposium. Paul Zucker, ed. (New York: Philosophical Library, 1944).

25. Louis Kahn “Monumentality” in New Architecture and City Planning: A Symposium, Paul Zucker, ed. (New York 1944).

26. Kahn, “Monumentality”

27. Kahn, “Monumentality”

28. The Government of Australia, Sydney Opera House Nomination by the Government of Australia for Inscription on the World Heritage List (Canberra: Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia, 2006), 27.

29. The citation reference to “outstanding achievements in structural engineering and technological innovation” (3.A(ii), extends to the contractors on the Sydney Opera House, particularly the pivotal role of Dundas Corbert Gore of Hornibrooks NSW Pty Ltd, who was instrumental in the realisation of Utzon and Arup’s design. See Messent, Opera House, Act One (1997) as well as more recently, Stracchi, P., Cardellicchio, L. and Tombesi, P., 2023. “Not really an aftermath. The role of actual construction in the design process of the Sydney Opera House roof” in Frontiers of Architectural Research, 12(2): 242-265.

30. Kahn “Monumentality,”1944.

31. Eero Saarinen interviewed by Henry Ingham Ashworth on 29 January 1957. Source: Utzon Architects website. https://utzon.dk/portfolio-item/sydney-opera-house/.

32. This quotation is attributed to Leslie Martin by David Messent in Opera House Act One (1997), 96 and to the judges as a group in Vincent Smith, The Sydney Opera House (Sydney: Paul Hamlyn, 1974), 65.

33. “The fact that any building must function was of course accepted as sine qua non.” Henry Ingham Ashworth quoted in Smith, The Sydney Opera House, 65.

34. “[the] four main roof shells…were conceived to cover and simultaneously express on the outside the four main elements of the theatres, namely the foyer, the stage tower, the auditorium and the northern lounge area. Utzon envisaged the roofs as functional sculpture” Philip Drew The Masterpiece: Jørn Utzon, A Secret Life (South Yarra: Hardie Grant Books 1999), 389.

35. The origin of this commonly accepted maxim can be traced to Louis Sullivan’s “The tall office building artistically considered” (Lippicott’s Magazine: 403, 1896). Sullivan’s observation that “form ever follows function” was truncated to “form follows function” by post war functional determinist architects in Europe, America and Australia. An example of its use in this context is Woolley in the statement “…the foundation philosophy of modern architecture, albeit rarely achieved, simplistic and probably impossible, was that form follows function.” Woolley, Reviewing the Performance (2011), 10.

36. UNESCO World Heritage Convention website. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/.

37. Sheridan Burke and Susan Macdonald “Creativity and conservation: managing significance at the Sydney Opera House” in JAPT Bulletin (2014) 45 (2):3.

38. Jørn Utzon. Utzon Design Principles, June 2002 (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, 2002).

39. Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 40.

40. Alan Croker, Respecting the Vision: Sydney Opera House-a Conservation Management Plan (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, 2017).

41. While a number of minor repetitions and ambiguities are evident within the Utzon Design Principles, two instances appear to directly contradict Utzon’s earlier position. The first is Utzon’s statement that he would have accepted “steel frames inside the hollow plywood tubes that make up the acoustical ceiling”(p36) which directly contradicts Utzon’s position on the matter of structural steel in the Minor Hall ceiling in 1966. See Peter Murray The Saga of the Sydney Opera House (Oxon: Spon Press, 2004), 86-87. The second relates to the glass walls, where Utzon suggests that Arup engineer Mick Lewis, upon seeing Utzon’s proposal for a steel mullion solution exclaimed, “Well now I can make the glass wall” (p30). This statement has been disputed by Lewis in Peter Murray, The Saga of the Sydney Opera House (2004), 129 and is one and is one for which there is no apparent evidence. See also Watson, The Poisoned Chalice (2017), 194, and Peter Compagnoni “Sydney Opera House halls and glass walls,” self-published book (Wetherill Park: Bright Print Group, 2019), 67-73.

42. Jørn Utzon, “Platforms and Plateaus: Ideas of a Danish Architect” in Zodiac International Magazine of Contemporary Architecture, Edition 10 (1962): 113-140.

43. “Besides its architectural force, the platform gives a good answer to today’s traffic problems. The simple thing that cars can pass underneath a surface, which is reserved for pedestrian traffic, can be developed in many ways” Utzon, “Platforms and Plateaus,” 117.

44. Utzon, “Platforms and Plateaus”, 117.

45. Utzon, “Platforms and Plateaus”, 9.

46. The added benefit of the colonnade as an external sun or rain shelter for café guests is considered secondary, as this requirement could have easily (and much more cost effectively) been met by way of umbrellas, for which there is ample precedence along the Sydney Opera House boardwalk.

47. Utzon revisited the Yucatan temples in 1966 on his journey home from Sydney to Denmark. See Philip Drew, Utzon and the Sydney Opera House, (Annandale: InSPIRE Press 2000), 117.

48. Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 33.

49. The World Heritage submission for the Sydney Opera House was prepared and withdrawn on two separate occasions prior to Utzon’s reengagement, finally being successfully submitted in 2006. See Croker, Respecting the Vision, 257.

50. Australian Government, Inscription on the World Heritage List 2006, 53.

51. Australian Government, Inscription, 54.

52. Croker, Respecting the Vision, 44.

53. Croker, Respecting the Vision, 135.

54. Jørn Utzon, “Descriptive Narrative Sydney Opera House January 1965” (1965), 17.

55. “Sydney Opera House Utzon Room Technical and Production Information” (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust 2018). Source: https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/content/dam/pdfs/functions/utzon-room-technical-and-product-information.pdf

56. The Peter Hall designed Recording Studio beneath the Concert Hall was originally completed in 1973 and decommissioned and converted to the Denis Wolanski Library in 1993. The library itself was dismantled in 1996 and converted into The Studio by Leif Kristensen Pty Ltd architects. A cinema operated in an adjacent space to the south from 1973 until 1982, when it was converted into The Playhouse Theatre. A third space, today known as the Drama Theatre, was expanded from Utzon’s original design by Hall to compensate for the loss of drama from the Minor Hall. See James Semple Kerr, An Interim Plan for the Conservation of the Sydney Opera House and its Site (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, 1993), 50-53.

57. James Semple Kerr. A Plan for the Conservation of the Sydney Opera House and its Site Third Edition (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, 2003), 71.

58. References to Mayan temples as the inspiration for the colonnade can be found in Kerr, A Plan for the Conservation of the Sydney Opera House (2003), 54 and Australian Government, Inscription on the World Heritage List (2006), 19. It is assumed that both sources were written with Utzon’s involvement and approval, based on the fact that an earlier, unpublished version of the CMP (Edition 2) was abandoned to accommodate the impact of Utzon’s reengagement. See Crocker, Respecting the Vision, ii.

59. Drew, “Utzon and the Sydney Opera House,” 117.

60. “Utzon’s proposal to build a free-standing colonnade is a sophisticated and ingenious design to solve an exceedingly difficult problem.” Peter Myers, “Utzon’s Return” in Architecture AU 1 (November 2002).

61. See “The Wolanski Foundation Project” website (http://www.twf.org.au/search/sohstory7.html). Specifically, see Philip Drew “That’s No Way to Treat a Masterpiece—The Great Reconciliation has Backfired” in The Australian 24/2/2006 and Elizabeth Farrelly, “If They Find the Money, It’s Curtains for the Opera House” in Sydney Morning Herald 14.3.06.

62. Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 48.

63. The conclusion that Utzon was not directly and personally involved in, or responsible for, the design of the colonnade is unsupported. The colonnade was clearly outlined in the Venue Improvement Plan, published to coincide with the Utzon Design Principles in May 2002. See Venue Improvement Plan (Sydney: Sydney Opera House Trust, 2002) Source: State Library of New South Wales, Mitchell Wing (Ref: Q725.82209 3).

64. “Utzon’s most substantial contribution to the place since his re-engagement was his (as yet unexecuted) design for the renewal of the Opera Theatre (now the Joan Sutherland Theatre), described and documented in the Gold Book presented to the Sydney Opera House Trust in 2005.” Croker, Respecting the Vision (2017), 23.

65. Jørn Utzon, 31 March 2005, quoted in Sydney Opera House New Opera Theatre, 2005. Report by Utzon Architects and Johnston Pilton Walker, Architects in Association (The Gold Book) 2007. Source: State Library of New South Wales, Mitchell Wing (Ref: HX 2015/5 Sydney Opera House 2,920,798).

66. Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 32.

67. “The structural design of the [roof shells] is obviously quite a problem and has only just been touched upon. The first task was to define the shape of the shells geometrically.” Ove Arup, Sydney National Opera House (The Red Book) 1958 (© 2018, Sydney Opera House Trust).

68. In her interview with Richard Johnson of 15/2/05, Due Schmidt quotes Johnson stating that the radius of the Opera Theatre ceiling is 4.877 m (16 ft). This is unlikely to be correct and has been interpreted to mean 9.754 m (32 ft). See Due Schmidt, The Tectonic Practice, 204.

69. The use of cylindrical ceiling segments was common to both the Major Hall as well as the Minor Hall ceiling. See Nobis, Utzon’s Interiors for the Sydney Opera House (1994), 151-162.

70. Utzon, Descriptive Narrative, 12.

71. “In my project for the Sydney Opera House I had what you could call nature’s colours on the exterior. That was the general idea - concrete, granite and ceramics. Within this landscape you had the halls that were to be richly decorated in festive colours but all this was in the developing stage and had not yet been finalised.” Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 34.

72. Utzon, Utzon Design Principles, 34.

73. The model is the second commissioned by Utzon’s office from Finecraft for the Major Hall. The first, completed in 1965, was donated to the Sydney Opera House Trust by Lin Utzon in 1995 and contained a subsequently superseded scheme for the auditorium ceiling and glass walls. See Watson, The Poisoned Chalice, 29.

74. Beyond the two Finecraft models, evidence of Utzon’s use of colour for the auditorium ceilings remains limited. Utzon refers to the decoration of the Major and Minor hall interiors in the Descriptive Narrative in 1965 as “according to an idea which will bring the changing colours into harmony with the geometrical concept” however adds that “[f]inal development of this work will take place while the structural and acoustical engineers are working on their side with the technical problems of the design.” See Utzon, Descriptive Narrative, 13.

75. The anticipated lifespan of the Sydney Opera House exterior (podium and concrete roof shells) is 250-300 years (Arup, O and Zunz, J. “Sydney Opera House—a paper on its design and construction,” 1988). By way of comparison, the lifespan of a typical auditorium is 50 years. This is evidenced by the recent major upgrade of the Concert Hall of the Sydney Opera House, by ARM architects and Mueller BBM, at a cost of close to $200 m, after 50 years of operation. Source: https://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/digital/articles/building/in-it-for-the-long-hall-concert-hall-renewal.html.